Moral Obligations part 3

Okay, you find a wallet on the ground and no one else is around. You look inside and find that the wallet has no identification of any kind. What it DOES have inside is say...$500 dollars. Do you take the money for yourself or do you hand it over to the police?

What would you do and why?

(And be honest people.)

No id in the wallet, no possible claimant.

Keep it. Possession is 9/10ths of the law

I would keep it.

I wouldnt take it to the police, because:

1. The likelyhood it would be claimed is slim, and in the case that the person did claim it,

2. The person is a dumb ass for losing a wallet with $500, so they dont deserve it.

3. "Finders keepers, losers weepers."

Hmm. Well I think the moral thing to do here is return it to the police. I must admit that I would be tempted to take the money but I know that I would honestly turn it in. For the simple fact that I've lost a large sum of money before and it was never returned and I just know how that feels. Plus there are too many people on television these days testing to see how honest people are. I would fear that I was falling into a trap. With my luck, I'd be the one caught on some hidden camera stuffing the wallet in my pocket, in front of all of America. Yeah, I'd definitely have to take it to the police.

If there's no id how can you prove it is yours?

NOW, if I found a wallet in a restaurant or a movie theatre, somewhere that a person would go "(light bulb moment!) I LEFT MY WALLET AT THE..." then I would return it, but there is something totally different about it being dropped and turning it into the police.

Britt...you are the one who would end up on one of those hidden videos! HAHA! I'll be watching out for you.

I think that this test was on Current Affair a long time ago. It showed that if we found the wallet in a public place, we'd return it. But, if found in a private place, like a public bathroom, we'd keep it. Rather sad findings.

It's not a common sense question, it's a moral dilemma.

The key point is the unidentifyable money, not who would be stupid enough to lose it in the first place.

Ismail: I would actually never think to call the police if I lost something, I would assume that I would have left it in a restaurant, a movie theatre, a coffee shop, etc. and call them. Losing something on the street is different, and I would never expect to get it back.

It is only morally wrong depending on whos moral standards you are applying the action to to be judged.

It's not just morality it's the ability to apply logic to the dilemma.

If the wallet had id in it.. say an address, I'd go out of my way drive there and give it back personally.

You could steal it even if there WAS ID in it. Not everyone would go out of their way to return it.

Clear cut:

The logic is that a wallet without id in it is unclaimable and will end up going to the government (indirect stealing) after being unclaimed for a set amount of time.

Therefore if you have picked up the id-less wallet which belongs to no one due to it being unidentifyable then the law of possession comes into play. Legally the wallet and it's contents are yours and it is not theft.

I'd be guilt free anyway, because anything I spent it on comes with taxes.

I would donate it to a charity before I handed it over to the government.

Easy thing to say, Ismail, but I don't see you strafing the streets for idless wallets to hand in so I won't demand that someone goes into a career in politics.

Arnold Scwarzenegger is married into the Kennedy Family and George Bush's dad was president.... BAAAAAAAAAAAD examples.

Arnie has popularity and has been involved with politics since he arrived in the UK when he was in training to become Mr Universe, Bush has been groomed to be politician since his teenage years.. PLENTY of experience.

Ismail: Out demonstrating more idiocy, I observe.

If you think it's that easy to change government, then I have OVERestimated you in the past, not underestimated you, so never accuse me of that again please.